Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Asha Menon, JJ.
Pitabasa Panigrahi - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P. (C) 3129 of 2021, CM Appl. 9498 of 2021
Decided On : 09-03-2021
Important Points
Subject
Pension Law - Administrative Law
Headnote
(B) Interest - Delay in payment of pension will incur interest at 7% per annum from expiry of twelve weeks until payment. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought pro rata pension claiming parity with prior rulings in Brijlal Kumar and Govind Kumar Srivastava cases. NOC was provided.
Findings of Court:
Respondents must verify the petitioners' claims within twelve weeks and grant relief if found entitled.
Issues: Entitlement to pro rata pension based on criteria established in earlier cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that similar cases should be treated uniformly, and interest on delayed payments ensures timely justice.
Result: Petition disposed of with directions to the respondents.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners claim pro rata pension relief. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. respondents recognize right to appeal. (Para 4) |
| 3. respondents directed to grant pension relief conditionally. (Para 5) |
| 4. interest on delayed pension payment. (Para 6) |
| 5. order to be communicated and uploaded. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral):
CM APPL. 9498/2021
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
WP (C) No. 3129/2021
1. This petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners in this petition claim to be similarly placed to the petitioner in Brijlal Kumar v. Union of India and others connected petitions 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1477 and the petitioners in Govind Kumar Srivastava v. Union of India 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6425 (DB) [against which Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8813/2019 has been dismissed on 26th April, 2019] and seeks the same relief as claimed therein i.e. of pro rata pension.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in this petition, on enquiry, states that the requisite No Objection Certificate (NOC) had been given.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly states that subject to the right to verification and the right of appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment in Brijlal Kumar (supra) being saved, the petition be disposed of.
5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of directing the respondents Indian Air Force that within twelve weeks herefrom, if they find the petitioners to be similarly placed as the petitioners in Govind Kumar Srivastava (supra) and Brijlal Kumar (supra) and other connected petitions supra, to grant them the same relief as granted in those petitions i.e. by payment of arrears of pro rata pension from the date of discharge till the date of payment and in future to continue to pay pro rata pension to the petitioner. However, if on verification it is found that the petitioners, for any reason, are not entitled to pro rata pension for reasons other than those stated in the judgments in Govind Kumar Srivastava (supra) and Brijlal Kumar (supra) and other connected petitions supra being in personam, the respondents, within the said twelve weeks, shall communicate to the petitioners, not so found entitled, the reasons in writing thereof and in which event, the petitioners shall be entitled to take further remedies there against. Needless to state that if any documents are asked for by the respondents, the same shall be furnished by the petitioners within a week.
6. If the arrears of pro rata pension are not paid within twelve weeks, the same shall also incur interest thereon @ 7% per annum from the expiry of twelve weeks till the date of payment.
7. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.
